عربي
Home


Resolutions of Iftaa' Board


Resolutions of Iftaa' Board

Resolution No.(175): "The Wife`s Father is Given Priority over Husband in Determining her Place of Burial in Case She Passed away"

Date Added : 02-11-2015

 

Resolution No.(175)(7/2012) by the Board of Iftaa`, Research and Islamic Studies:

"The Wife`s Father is Given Priority over Husband in Determining her Place of Burial in Case she Passed away"

Date: 14/7/1433 AH, corresponding to 4/6/2012 AD.

 

All perfect praise be to Allah. Blessings and peace be upon Prophet Mohammad and upon all his family and companions.

On the above date, the Board reviewed the following question:

Who should be given priority to receive the dead body of the  wife or the husband, take care of the burial process, and accept the condolences, whether their marriage was valid or they were divorced. Should the husband be given the priority, the wife, the children, the husband`s or the wife`s family?

Since death suffices as a lesson, there should be no room for dispute; rather, people should agree on what is best for the deceased as regards his/her burial place and funeral.

In case of dispute, priority should be given to the close paternal relatives of the deceased. If they disagreed about his/ her burial place, then the father is given priority, then the children, then the brothers.

The four jurists have given the wife`s relatives the priority in performing her funeral prayer. In fact, the Hanafite jurists have stated: "The husband enjoys no guardianship over his deceased wife; however, he is obliged to pay for the costs of enshrouding her and all the other costs of her burial." {Rad`d Al-Mohtaar, vol.2/pp.220,206}. This opinion has been adopted by the Jordanian Civil Status Code, 2010 /Article (71).

The Malikites as well as the Shafites gave priority to the husband over his wife`s male Mahrams as regards washing her (Ghusl) and placing her in the grave, because he is allowed to look at parts of her, which others aren`t allowed to look at; therefore, her Mahrams are given priority to take care of her funeral`s affairs, and her husband has more right to handle matters which may involve her indecent exposure.

Accordingly, when there is dispute as regards determining the place of the wife`s burial, priority is given to her father, then her sons over her husband, as stated by Al-Imam Ar-ramli (May Allah bless him): "If there is a dispute as regards the burial place of the husband, who made no bequest in this regard, then priority should be given to his closest paternal relatives in deciding where to bury him. If the deceased was the wife, then her closest paternal relatives should be given priority over her husband as to where she should be buried." {Nihayat Al-Mohtajj}. Moreover, Al-Khateeb Ash-Shirbini stated: "If the father and the mother had disputed over where to bury their deceased son, then the father should have the final say." {Moghni Al-Mohtajj}.

As regards accepting the condolences, we advise both parties to reach an agreement on that  for the sake of Allah and the deceased`s. And Allah Knows Best.

 

Chairman of the Iftaa` Board, The Grand Mufti of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, His Grace Sheikh Abdulkareem Al-Khasawneh.

Vice-Chairman of the Iftaa` Board, Prof. Ahmad Helayel

Prof. Abduln`nassir Abu Al Bass`al/ Member

His Eminence, Sheikh Sa`ied Hijjawi/ Member

Pro. Mohammad Al-Qhodat/ Member

     Dr. Wasif Al-Bakhri

Dr. Mohammad Al-Khalayleh/ Member

Dr. Mohammad Khair Al-Essa/ Member

Dr.Mohammad Al-Zou`bi/ Member

 

Decision Number [ Previous | Next ]


Summarized Fatawaa

What is the ruling on attending relatives` parties held in public halls, or hotels since if we don`t, we will be subjected to their admonition?

If such parties involve mixing between men and women, or forbidden acts such as listening to songs with sinful lyrics, then attending them is forbidden from the view point of Sharia since people`s admonition is nothing compared to Allah`s, The Almighty`s, wrath.

What is the ruling on offering a sheep as a sacrifice (Udhiyah) if its fat-tail is sound, except that when it was young, the tip of its fat-tail was cut so that it would grow larger? And what is the ruling in case of doubt regarding the amount that was cut?

 
In the Name of Allah, and may peace and blessings be upon our Master, the Messenger of Allah.
 
Cutting a minor, insignificant portion from the tip of an animal's fat-tail (al-alyah) to encourage it to grow larger is not considered a defect, and it does not prevent the animal from being valid for sacrifice (Udhiyah).
 
It is stated in Tuhfat al-Muhtaj (Vol.9/P.352): "There is some scholarly deliberation regarding the common practice of cutting the tip of the fat-tail so that it grows larger. It could potentially be likened to a partial cut of the ear—supported by the jurists' general rule: 'even if it is a small amount.' On the other hand, if it is an exceptionally minor cut, it might have no effect on validity. This is explicitly clarified by the juristic exception to the general rule, which states that cutting a tiny piece from a large limb causes no harm. This latter view is more well-founded.
 
Furthermore, I found that some scholars investigated this matter and concluded: 'It should not affect validity if a custom-sanctioned portion of its fat-tail is removed during its youth to make it grow larger and look better, just as castrating a male animal causes no harm.' However, applying this unconditionally contradicts the established texts of the jurists, as understood from what I have laid out; thus, the restriction I specified is what must be relied upon."
 
Similarly, it is mentioned in Nihayat al-Muhtaj (8/135): "If a small piece is cut from the fat-tail to help it grow larger, the most well-founded view is that the sacrifice remains valid, as was given in a formal legal verdict (Fatwa) by my father [Shihab al-Din al-Ramli], may Allah be pleased with him. This is proven by the jurists' maxim: 'The loss of a tiny piece from a large limb causes no harm.'"
 
In cases where there is doubt as to whether the portion cut was large or small, the animal is still deemed valid for sacrifice. It is noted in Hashiyat al-Shubramallisi ‘ala Nihayat al-Muhtaj (Vol.8/P.135):
 
"This matter requires careful consideration, but the closer and more correct view is that it is valid. This is because soundness is the default state for the animal from which the piece was cut, and it aligns with what usually occurs—namely, that the part removed to help the fat-tail grow larger is naturally very small." And Allah the Almighty Knows Best.

How does one with a continuous condition (like urinary incontinence or non-menstrual vaginal bleeding - mustahada) perform ablution?

A person with a continuous condition must do three things:
1. Not perform ablution except after the prayer time has entered.
2. Change the bag or diaper placed to reduce the flow of urine or blood after the prayer time enters, wash the private part from blood or urine, and perform ablution immediately.
3. Perform the actions of ablution in immediate succession, then pray immediately without delay, unless he intends to pray with the congregation.
It is not permissible for a person with a continuous condition to combine two obligatory prayers with one ablution, as he must perform ablution for each obligatory prayer, even if making it up (qada'). And Allah the Almighty knows best.

Is it permissible for one who sacrifices on behalf of another, with the latter's permission, to eat from the sacrifice?

It is permissible for someone who sacrificed on behalf of another with their permission to eat from it with their permission, and they stand in their place (act as their representative) in distributing it.
 
It is stated in Nihayat al-Muhtaj ila Sharh al-Minhaj (Vol.8/P.141): "And he—meaning the one sacrificing on his own behalf, provided he has not apostatized—has the right to eat from a voluntary sacrifice and his sacrificial gift; rather, it is recommended. As for an obligatory sacrifice, it is forbidden for him to eat from it, whether it was designated as such initially or as a liability in his dhimmah. And excluded by what has preceded is if he sacrifices on behalf of another, or if he apostatized, then it is not permissible for him to eat from it, just as it is absolutely impermissible to feed a disbeliever from it."(The text I found indicates the impermissibility of eating) ???
 
And it is stated in Hashiyat al-Jamal ‘ala Sharh al-Manhaj (Vol.5/P.262): "If a person offers a sacrifice on behalf of a living person with their permission, does he act as their representative in distributing it—on the grounds that permission to sacrifice is permission to distribute it—or does it depend on their explicit permission? This requires consideration, but the first view is not far-fetched." And Allah the Almighty knows best.

See More